Slavery and Liberation...

[WhoPurrsWins]

Well, on the list of so many things that I hope Paradox does change or modify, I do hope ONE thing will be done along the way...

Allow me to explain, based on the example of my current game. There was my empire (Materialistic, Pacifist and Individualist Fox People), that got along with the Synths, and was the smallest of the three empires (I am playing a Small game, thus why there are only a handful of AIs). Between me and the largest Empire was another Empire of rather unhappy lizard people. They got both me and my neighbor angry so we both decleared war on them, and over a few decades conquered them entirely.

While the annexed planets in my territory were exposed to prosperity and ever expanding technology (I mean, come on. Welfare, Entertainment Parks... What more could you ask for?) the other half of the planets, held by the other Empire, were having a much worse day, with pretty much three quarters of the lizard people enslaved (and I do mean, Enslaved).

Push came to shove eventually and I decleared war on my ever hungrier and insulting neighbor, and began my campaign by targetting those Enslaved Lizard Planets.

Yet, to my surprise, the "poor" Lizard people who were Slaves to their Masters, and were now liberated by my Empire weren't happy at all. In fact they were furious that their planet was conquered!

Perhaps what I just wish to say is, Slave Pops should not have the "Recently Conquered" debuff, because I imagine that if your last owner turned you into a slave, and the new one freed you and Banned Slavery you should be happier about the new guy in control of your planet, no? Perhaps there could be a buff, for a number of years, "Liberated"/"Emancipated", that appears when an Empire frees a Slave Pop?

Anyway, just a couple cents.

[Flamin Jesus]

I agree, not even just that, they actually also get a "was enslaved" modifier that pisses them off even more!

[Apeironic_Entelechy]

While I agree that slaves getting angry because they were freed is a silly and should be fixed. But is their anger at being conquered really that unreasonable? I mean you didn't liberate them and create a independent state, rather you conquered them and forcily inducted them into your state. So some anger IMO makes sense given the context.

[Flamin Jesus]

Forcibly inducted them into a nation that gives them equal rights. I just don't see it.
Furthermore, the same still applies to the populations of integrated vassals, which have agreed to a lengthy, costly and peaceful integration.

[WhoPurrsWins]

Well, if we dwelt on the Siociological reasons for an outburst... We could say that Xenophobic Races/Pops would not appreciate being under the rule of anybody, whether they were promised freedom or not (I mean, in this game at least, they are blind bigots, no matter just what you offer them).

Aside from that, I do sort of see why a "Liberated" planet would still be unhappy if they would still be under the governance of another Empire, even if that Empire offered them equal rights and what not.

I mean, imagine if the Americans landed in France in 1944, liberated Paris and the North of France and then said, "You know what, we like it here. This is now American Territory.". Sure, life under the American government might not had been bad, but the French would be faaaar from happy, as would anybody.

It is a bit of a shame you cannot re-educate Pops toward your default/main ethos, which could take one or two generations (I mean, realistically, it's a game so it could take less time). The political system in Stellaris is not advanced enough to give the player a choice to create smaller/local governments, or to grant certain rights or licenses to planets, so that they feel closer at home. And I do not mean Vassals or Liberated planets, these do not really work because certain Ethos combinations would make your "Liberated" governments violent toward you, which is exactly what you did not want to have.

One example I can think of is when I wanted to be nice and Liberated some regions that I conquered previously, being a Xenophobic and Militaristic Government. Suddenly all of the liberated mini-empires were very, very violent toward me (because they were all also by defauly Xenophobic and militaristic), but helpless, so I conquered them back quickly.

[Jetoilio]

Originally posted by Flamin Jesus:

Forcibly inducted them into a nation that gives them equal rights. I just don't see it.

The middle east resisted American forces. I know it's not the exact same, but as a general rule, people will resist losing their independence even if they stand to benefit in other ways.

[Flamin Jesus]

Originally posted by Jetoilio:

Originally posted by Flamin Jesus:

Forcibly inducted them into a nation that gives them equal rights. I just don't see it.

The middle east resisted American forces. I know it's not the exact same, but as a general rule, people will resist losing their independence even if they stand to benefit in other ways.

Not just not the exact same, it's nothing alike. Now whether the "liberated" middle eastern people's lives improved or not is a different discussion, but either way they weren't literally dragged out of a prison mine or an 18th century style slave plantation, which is what the game strongly implies is what's happening to the enslaved pops in this game.

There's a difference between a *slave* and a "free" citizen in an oppressive government, I'm perfectly open to the idea of citizens of a fascist state coming to love their fascism as long as the oppression doesn't obtrusively hinder their daily lives (In fact, that's what's happened in pretty much every oppressive nation in history to some extent), but that's not the same as literal forced labor in a camp. "Bob got a visit by some black-clad gentlemen after writing an open letter critical of the big pooba, that fool" is different from "Bob got beaten to death in front of us to teach us a lesson because he was too weak to get up and work, because of his malnourishment". Political pundits may call what's described in the first sentence "slavery", that doesn't mean it is (it's authoritarianism). The second IS slavery however, and whatever logic one follows, whoever could earnestly say the second sentence is going to be grateful to whoever stops that unless his spirit is so broken he qualifies as insane, at least if he follows any form of thinking that a human being could relate to.